As a much respected mixer i was wondering if you were able to share some thoughts on how the 'home revolution' has affected the quality of the tracks that you are given to mix. As a long term AE and come up through the 'old school' can you notice that there are both distintive differences between the tracks you get home people now as opposed to those 'pre -PT' or 'revolution'.

Do songs take longer to mix now?

Is the quality of general tracking down in most cases?

Are most things just a pile pf phase hell?

Are drums mostly replaced?

Are you the 'producer' in most cases as people pile more tracks into their songs, and leve it upto you and your jusgement to make the call on what gets the chop and what stays?

Have less expereinced engineers/ producers bought some new and exciting dynamic to the table for you as a mixer as they are more willing to experiment and not be bound by the 'old school' conventions of AE?

"Do songs take longer to mix now?"
Wiggy , That's a hard one because these day's most everyone expects to have a mix a day , no matter what, even get the next one started , whereas a few years ago , if it was a complex mix then a day and a half was the norm.
Record budgets changed the time frame of finishing a mix so even tho you could have no clue as to the state of the Protools files you just recieved and whether there was gonna be hours spent trying to restore some messed up session etc. which invariably was the case, and then deal with some producer who kept everything and didn't label it properly, something had to change because it was getting out of hand.
It was not possible to finish the mix in time. I actually got a record to mix ..a whole album where the smallest track count was 120 !!!!!. The song I tried to start with was 160 frigin tracks!!!( I bailed). That's an extreme but true case so now , at least within the company that manages me , there are guidelines for how protools sessions are to be recieved by us and labelled etc so that we can get straight to the mixing after a quicker set-up.
I can only talk about how I work of course , and I can work totally fine this way and my clients are happy , but the one's I can talk into letting me mix ITB at home and spend the time I really want without them freaking out about the money they would be paying the SSL room is growing. I just like to spend time on a mix and get right into it otherwise you can get a little stale I think,because there is less time for experimenting. I hate that.
There are also many times when its more chaotic in the sudio and the energy is very high and the whole team in the studio is in the swing of it then we can easily get a mix done in a matter of hours, if it's the right record , and that is a blast.

"Are you the 'producer' in most cases as people pile more tracks into their songs, and leve it upto you and your judgement to make the call on what gets the chop and what stays?"

Different each record really Wiggy , but an awful lot of records that come in to mix need a LOT of work on them.Some we have to completely rebuild in protools due to crappy editing and shoddy Protool work. There are lot's of times when I'm asked if the vocal needs to ne re-done or if I feel the need for "added production" etc and I just tell it as I hear it. If it feels like it's not all there then I will add what I think it needs. Sometimes that can be quite a bit of extra work.
That is more than just mixing for sure , but it's all part of the gig and I love it. I just wish Protools engineers would go a little deeper into their box sometimes 'cos redoing bad edits is a pain and a lot of drum and vocal editing gets done by some people who really don't have the feel for it so sometimes I have to go back to the back to the source and redo the editing and also to find the vocal takes and undo friggin auto tune ..or at least lessen it.
My protools engineer always get's the session a day ahead and opens it to see what shape it's in and we go from there.

I wonder if you could re-assure me. I never finish a mix in a day. I guess its possibly because my engineering could be better, or that arranging, mixing and tracking are blurred into one long...mixing session. Even when actually setting aside a day for mixing, I find that I'll still be fixing stuff or re-working ideas right up to the last minute.
Actually going through the 'traditional' method of zeroing the faders and starting with a dry balance, seems a long way away these days.

Originally posted by shipshape ....there are guidelines for how protools sessions are to be recieved by us and labelled etc so that we can get straight to the mixing after a quicker set-up.

So, what do you prefer/expect in terms of session organization? What should be removed from the session? Kept? How "should" the logistical nightmare of keeping track of keepers and garbage tracks be approached? When to keep scratch tracks and when to dump them. Should paper notes accompany the drive/cd/dvd? Is it able to be assumed a pro pro tools mixer will have every plugin in existence, and if not how should they be printed to disk? Etc.

Just curious, mainly because i have been running into more and more difficulties figuring out what i did on a session years ago when i pull it out to play with it some more. I'm in the middle of devising a (hopefully) complete personal documentation routine, and any advice on making it more "universal" would be great. Nothing like losing my carefull/obsessive internal DAW notes after having changed applications :(

Originally posted by Wiggy Neve Slut Mike... perhaps in an industry first.

maybe we coudl kinda develop some minda defacto standard as to how PT files should be served up tot he likes of yourself, other top flight crew and hell even fellow GS for them to work on?

Do you have a format for this?

Is it worth developing for yours and everyone elses sanity?

Cheers
Wiggy

Wigs,

This has been proposed many times.

I think a standard has been adopted already.

Its funny, the worst things are tracked, the more it opens opportunities for guys that can fix things.

I think the modern mix engineer has to be adept at not only his favorite analog gear, but the latest fix it type plugs as well.

I bitched for a while about the tracking going on these days(and most of the stuff i get sent to mix is vocals and synth/samples). But even tracking synths/samples people are screwing up(probably the most basic).

I just got a 5 song r&b/gospel project to mix and most of the synth tracks have disc drive noise on them.

I am thinking like "how the hell can you screw that up", but it happens.

The biggest pet peeve i have is the over compression of vocal tracks(leads and backgrounds).

Man sometimes its so ridiculous.

Even though the Distressor is a cool tool and forums like these are great, its also created this notion that you have to compress vocals when tracking. Its put compression in the hands of the masses(a mistake at times in my opinion).

To be honest i tell a lot of people i work with that i track most of the lead vocals without compression. This is to get a conscious and subconscious response(get people off the compression drug).

Originally posted by DClarkson2004 How the hell does one get a track-count of a 160?!
Are you recording 2 symphony-orchestras simultaniously?
Bounce your stuff; saves you a LOT of time!

160 is actually pretty easy.

On modern pop/R&B productions having 64 tracks alone for lead vocals and backgrounds is normal.

When you seperate all of the drums(multiple kicks,snares, and hats) and the percussion(shakers,congas,claves,bells,etc) that can take up 32-48 tracks.

We haven't even spoken about the bass(usually direct, mic'd and maybe a synth tone),acoustic and electric guitar tracks(who knows how many mics), speciall effects and all of the synth/keyboard tracks(they all have to be in stereo right).

If you use real strings than you up your track count. If you use a real choir, up it again.

Thrill you are correct in a way because I get a lot of records like you where the track count is over a hundred , but usually there is method in the madness. Th reason the 120-160 record kinda got to me was that with 60 tracks of electric gtrs alone..in a rock band , that's just plain bad production in my book. I don't really see why Ive gotta sit there for 3 days sifting thru way to many gtr parts and try to eq and find space for them when really a 10 or son tracks for gtrs would have sufficed maybe more but not 60 !!!!

Originally posted by shipshape Thrill you are correct in a way because I get a lot of records like you where the track count is over a hundred , but usually there is method in the madness. Th reason the 120-160 record kinda got to me was that with 60 tracks of electric gtrs alone..in a rock band , that's just plain bad production in my book. I don't really see why Ive gotta sit there for 3 days sifting thru way to many gtr parts and try to eq and find space for them when really a 10 or son tracks for gtrs would have sufficed maybe more but not 60 !!!!

Ship,

In your case(guitar tracks) i totally agree.

Its like they want you to hold their hand and make the choices for them as well.

I've always felt that in this case they should give us the production credit as well(including the pay).

For me what drives me nuts is when i get every synth sound in stereo. I understand if it has a panning type effect, but for a Rhodes or Wurlitzer?

I end up killing one side anyway.

But of course because most of the producers are keyboard players they have to hear everything in stereo. Left and right...WOW!!!

And they want the choruses to be big and the drums to hit hard and everything to be wide. And they give you 8 kicks, 6 snares and 10 hihats.

But unfortunately if people learned what to leave out, they would still find away to add even more useless stuff.

Mixing is kind of a team effort for me , I have the same assistant , protools engineer and runner on all the studio mixes I do so that makes everything easier to start with but sometimes when I can turn up to the studio with everything patched up and labelled on the console the way I like it , and all I have to do is hit play and everyone in the room is doing their thing .
My second protools system is up and running with a copy of the session in case there is work I need done while Im working and the session has been open and running fine, then we are ready to go. The runner has already made some waffles , hit starbucks and then after a bit of goofing off (a game of ping pong !)we can be ready for the inevitable overdub,or edits etc. (mic's are ready if need be etc) and then we can get started and get a flow going ,everyone feels part of the mix . I don't like people hanging around while I'm mixing so everyone at least knows how to look busy !!!

My clients used to ask to be in on the mix, but I find that their prescence is un-nerving, you feel you can't make anything sound bad for any length of time, they get nervous and you can feel your time to make good slipping away by the second.
Most of the time I insist that they leave me to it, that way I can do things at my own pace, try out ideas, screw things up and they'd never know about it.

However, having more experienced clients or other engineers is really quite useful, and can make a big difference, if they know when to let you do your thing, or can make informed suggestions. I get a buzz out of people being there then, especially when theres a good vibe in the room and everyones getting excited!!

Would anyone here agree that having a team around you is as much about this as actually being there for essential duties?

*** Innervoice**The only team i want around me when i mix is a team of skantily clad women fanning me with palm fronds.... *** DOH that inner voice isnt meant to actually end up on screen!**

Ship i can fully understand the whole team vibe, it seems that most of the 'gods' of mixing have the same outlook on productions now and imho its almost a necessity given the stupid track counts and crap you and the team have to sift through to bring a semblence of normaility and perspective to the mixes you are given. Hats off!!!!

I get stressed if its more than 32 tracks!.. but im still thinking in the land of 2".

Thrill, I understand a trackcount of 64...on a complete mix.
Is it true that outside PT, about 6-7 tapemachines are being synced to reach a total count of 160?
Mixed on a 160 channel console?
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to make little submixes, by bouncing stuff like background vox, which takes a LOT of tracks indeed.

Originally posted by shipshape Th reason the 120-160 record kinda got to me was that with 60 tracks of electric gtrs alone..in a rock band , that's just plain bad production in my book.

Spot on.

Sounds like an example of the 'shotgun' approach, coupled with a severe fear to commit to anything, taken to the extreme conclusion.

I simply cannot comprehend why anyone would ever need to use 60 guitar tracks. Not even Steve Vai. Did the producer just have no idea of what sound he was after, so he just recorded 'one of each' and left you to sort it out?

Originally posted by DClarkson2004 Thrill, I understand a trackcount of 64...on a complete mix.
Is it true that outside PT, about 6-7 tapemachines are being synced to reach a total count of 160?
Mixed on a 160 channel console?
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to make little submixes, by bouncing stuff like background vox, which takes a LOT of tracks indeed.

I mixed a PT song(before HD) where we had synced up 2 Macs to get that many tracks happening.

It was on a 96 channel J i think.

The reason again is that people want to wait to the last minute to make decisions.

Really they want YOU TO MAKE IT FOR THEM.

The funny thing a lot of times is just alternate takes that the producer doesn't even remember.heh

By the way the reason for the track count above was that the producer wanted a humongous sounding string section. Unfortunately he had the budget for only 9 players so he had them make 12 passes of the same piece.

9x12=108 string tracks

That's for the strings alone. There was also vocals,drums,bass,guitars and synths.

That is nuts! Why not just sing it? Does anyone practice anymore? I'd fire the singer if I was producing, that is unreal. Wouldn't the singer tell someone to bugger off already 10 takes is enough? Or are pop singers just expensive karaoke singers who have to make a label happy?

I can understand comping 3 or 4 takes or choosing a best chorus, but when working with my own singing, if I don't like the take, I DELETE IT. Right away. If it is bad the 1st time listening, it won't get any better.

It takes minutes to redo something, and hours to TRY to fix it then decide to just re-take it anyway.

It's not like the average pop song even has anything approximating a trained vocalist's range. How hard can this be?

That is nuts! Why not just sing it? Does anyone practice anymore? I'd fire the singer if I was producing, that is unreal. Wouldn't the singer tell someone to bugger off already 10 takes is enough? Or are pop singers just expensive karaoke singers who have to make a label happy?

I can understand comping 3 or 4 takes or choosing a best chorus, but when working with my own singing, if I don't like the take, I DELETE IT. Right away. If it is bad the 1st time listening, it won't get any better.

It takes minutes to redo something, and hours to TRY to fix it then decide to just re-take it anyway.

It's not like the average pop song even has anything approximating a trained vocalist's range. How hard can this be?

A classical 2 track guy who is just mystified at the silliness,

Nathanael

When you want a nice thick chorus, layering it a bunch of times(quadruples on every note works great).

If its a four part chorus that is 16 tracks. If the choruses overlaps(which happens on a double chorus) and you don't want to cut the ending of the phrases, add another 16.

What about adlibs?

Its common to let the singer just sing adlibs all the way thru a couple of times and pick and choose the best one's. This could be from 4-6 tracks.

If there is a bridge in the song(remember those right?) add another 16 tracks .